L’intoxication en contexte suicidaire et les deux sens de l’acte volontaire en droit criminel canadien: une critique de l’arrêt R. c. Turcotte
Bibliographic record
Abstract
espanolEste articulo realiza una critica de la decision pronunciada por el Tribunal de Apelaciones de Quebec en el ano 2013, en la cual se dejo sin efecto la primera decision dictada, y en la que se declaraba la exencion de responsabilidad penal en el caso Turcotte. Despues de haber insistido sobre la relativa indeterminacion de los criterios que rigen el poder de intervencion de los tribunales en dicha materia, el autor procura revelar las lagunas de diversos razonamientos que fundamentan esta decision. El Tribunal de Apelaciones no considero la polisemia constitutiva de la nocion de acto voluntario en el derecho canadiense cuando realizo la calificacion de la intoxicacion. El autor sostiene que se ha omitido hacer justicia en la trama factual e inedita del caso, particularmente al desestimar el papel determinante de la crisis suicida en la genesis de los sucesos. Finalmente, el autor argumenta que el tribunal ha suplantado al juez de la causa en la valoracion de los hechos, y que se permitio indebidamente que la fiscalia modificara de manera sustancial su argumentacion en la apelacion. EnglishThis article reviews the decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal in the Turcotte case, which set aside the first verdict of not criminally responsible in 2013. After highlighting the relative indeterminacy of the criteria which govern the power of intervention of the courts in this field, the author explains the deficiencies of several of the arguments underlying the judgment. In addition to the Court of Appeal’s failure to take into account the polysemous nature of the notion of voluntary act in Canadian law when it characterizes intoxication, the author argues that it failed to do justice to the unprecedented factual framework for the case, notably by ignoring the determining role of the suicidal crisis in the unfolding of events. Finally, the author argues that the court substituted itself for the trial judge in assessing the facts and wrongly allowed the prosecution to make substantial changes to its initial argument at the time of the appeal. francaisLe present article se veut une critique de l’arret prononce par la Cour d’appel du Quebec en 2013 qui a conduit a l’annulation du premier verdict de non-responsabilite criminelle dans l’affaire R. c. Turcotte. Apres avoir insiste sur la relative indetermination des criteres qui regissent le pouvoir d’intervention des tribunaux en semblable matiere, l’auteur s’efforce de devoiler les lacunes de plusieurs raisonnements qui fondent cette decision. Outre que la Cour d’appel n’a pas tenu compte de la polysemie constitutive de la notion d’acte volontaire en droit canadien lorsqu’elle a qualifie l’intoxication, l’auteur soutient qu’elle a omis de rendre justice a la trame factuelle inedite de l’affaire, notamment en evacuant le role determinant joue par le raptus suicidaire dans la genese des evenements. Enfin, l’auteur fait valoir que le tribunal s’est substitue au juge du proces dans l’appreciation des faits et qu’il a permis, a tort, a la poursuite de modifier fondamentalement son argumentation en appel.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".